Skip to main content
8:00 pm
religion and politics with george will. next, a discussion on climate science, politics and global warming. panelists talked about what they think is next for the american west, texas, and north east due to climate change, and attitudes about science from the public. from the commonwealth club of california, this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you for coming. we are delighted to be here today. welcome to clement won, a conversation about climate energy. burning fossil fuels release
8:01 pm
[indiscernible] they accepted the the fundamentals of climates science. today, things are different. skeptics are winning the comic communication battle even as temperatures rise and the intensity increases worldwide. over the next hour, we will talk about high school physics and chemistry and how science has committed in the public realm. we are joined by three distinguished scientists. michael mann is the author of "hockey and the current war."
8:02 pm
and a student from stanford university. >> i should mention that bill is here on very short notice. thank you for stepping in on such short notice you published the seminal work study on the hockey stick. tell us what the hockey stick is. >> it is not a sport. it is a curve that my co- authors and i published a few years ago. we had eight century of widespread thermometers around the world. we had to turn to what we call proxy data. it is to piece together how the
8:03 pm
clement buried in the more distant past. while it was relatively warm about a thousand years ago, the recent warming exceeded anything we have seen in the last thousand years. and it was featured in the summary for policymakers in 2001. when it became an icon in climate change, we saw the need to try to discredit this graph. indeed they saw discrediting me as a way of trying to do that. many have been vilified for the work the bayh done.
8:04 pm
i was all -- the work that they have done. i was also vilified. i was a involuntary an accidental public figure. i was put in the limelight in the way that our detractors have tried to put me in the limelight. i will try to take a vantage of that. the book was part of my effort to do that. >> catherine, you say to be willing to take it in the neck is not talking to the right people. [laughter] >> not to continue the hockey stick metaphor -- >> you are canadian, by the way. >> yes. i feel that, with climate change being so polarized right now that, if we as scientists are not getting through, we're
8:05 pm
not talking to the right people. i feel like a dog who has found a potential refract -- potential reflag that we would not tell you but for fear that you might be angry. >> you are relatively new to this field. did you know what you're getting into when you decided to pursue a career in atmospheric change? >> a little bit. having studied under steven schneider and experiencing it, and others, i was prepared for the public scrutiny. we did a study on climate change and the proportionate of scientists who agree with it. 98%. i was certainly not prepared for
8:06 pm
the personal nature and ec of the backlash. >> what happened -- and the immediacy of a backlash. >> what happened? what were the consequences? >> our study did two things. there was an incredibly high agreement behind what they have articulated as the main component about climate change. the second was that those were published in doubting and expressing their lack of agreement essentially were not very well qualified. the vast majority of them did not publish in science literature. they had not studied in science. .he backlash was immediatel the blogger sphere -- the blogosphere was amplified.
8:07 pm
it was not very friendly. >> when people poster picture and your e-mail address and encourage others to send you nasty e mills, i have -- nasty e-mails, i have had over two hundred messages from people i did not know in a single morning. they were from unpleasant to downright evil. >> you have a couple of attorney general's -- >> only one attorney general. >> who has really had a turn it on your back because of the hockey stick. >> >> i believe that the attacks against me and other climate scientists are intended to have a chilling effect. they want to make an example of us for anybody else who wants
8:08 pm
to publish scientific findings that have implications for human-caused climate change. i have also been letters -- one containing a white substance. had to have the fbi come in and there was police tape over the door of my office. they had to send the material off to a lab. it was a harmless substance. but it was meant to send a chilling message. but that is part of the life of being a climate scientist today in public discourse. at a when you're looking prospective research project >> does it affect your research choices? >> not me. i have already made a commitment. i will go down this road.
8:09 pm
i i see the attacks against me that have led me to recognize the importance of not being intimidated by these tactics, by not setting an example for younger scientists who might decide that, well, maybe i should go into another field. and i think in part that is what our detractors would like to see. they would like to see a barrier set up to prevent other scientists from doing research that have implications for our burning fossil fuels and policy toward carbon emissions. we cannot allow science to be chilled. we cannot allow scientific intended to be set by those who have vested interests, to not have the truth be unveiled. [applause]
8:10 pm
>> let's talk a little bit about who these people are and motivations. there is quite firm grasp of bags. they are well informed. >> my personal experience living in west texas is that the people let me in the grocery store or walking down the street or in the office next door, they know more about the issues surrounding climate change than the average person who says we have to take action right away because they don't think it is a real problem. they have all of these reasons not to back it up. as a scientist, i think the facts are enough. there is an enormous amount of fear that we're dealing with an issue where the m? are distant and far away. but the solutions -- where the
8:11 pm
impacts our descent and far away. but the solutions infringe on our freedom and our economy and our rights. there is a lot of emotion attached to this. do i think about which research projects to do? no, because i get it for standing up and saying that by seeing the change in humans are the cause. it is not new research here is the basic fact we have known for decades. >> how do you communicate that? >> they are are a few people for whom facts are important, but it is about fear. it is thinking that i am a conservative and conservatives don't think this is true. or i am a person of faith and this is not compatible with my faith in god. these a things that people near
8:12 pm
and dear to their hearts and not their brains. but we all live on this planet. we'll want a better life for children. we want a better economy. those of us who hold any major faith believe the creation is something to be taking care of, the people are to be loved. when we have these shared values and make a case for climate change, we're starting with identities of people already have. >> you have written about six stages of the nile. denial.he nil >> the claim that the earth was not warming soon became untenable. not just thermometer records,
8:13 pm
but independent-minded bevins tell us that the climate is warming. so the next stage of denial is that he is part of the natural suck -- the natural cycle. but then that is untenable because of the kind of work that scientists have done that find that it is not part of the natural cycle. so it goes. so then the argument is that part of the warming is due to human impact, but it is pretty small and it will not be very much in the future and the sensitivity of the climate system is at the low-end. peevishly, that becomes untenable. -- eventually, the becomes untenable. we see in the arctic, the sea ice is retreating at a schedule that is decades ahead what the
8:14 pm
models were projecting. we see changes on full faster than we would expect. somewhat ironically, it eventually, this comes full circle. it is too late to do anything about it anyways. so we might as well just adapt to it. one has to recognize that denial does take various forms. and there are various constituencies that we're spending too. this is not monolithic. >> there is a piece of work called "the sixth america." from alarm to concern, caution, disengage, helpful, and submissive -- how do you fine- tune your message? >> we are working exactly on that right now. we're looking of social psychology, media and marketing.
8:15 pm
again, it is going off of science. how do we react to information? we all have different values and different things that motivate us. we have to recognize that, for one person, making it better for their child might be paramount. but for another person, national security might be very issue. there's also responsibility, loving your neighbor, creation maybe the next step. even though there is there one size facts fits all, it is not a one-size science. >> this is not for anything special, but something on top of [indiscernible] how're you doing with that? [laughter] >> we have a responsibility. we have this issue.
8:16 pm
i think i speak with all of you. if we hold silent on a, who will speak? we are not in this because we want to receive e-mails morning. we're in this because we have to tell the truth. >> you have been a key person talking to communities of faith. how you get over that god sovereignty issue? >> that is a fairly common question which is easy to answer. look around us today. do we see things happening that are bad? do we see consequences of poor choices that we see? all the time. somebody drinks to many, they get in the car and they kill somebody. we see all the time evidence of reaping what we have sowed.
8:17 pm
and the bible tells us that. it is a reflection of free will that god has given us to make choices and to bear the consequences of those choices. >> do you buy that? >> at some level, whether you want to frame this in terms of religious faith or ethics, to me, we focus so much on climate change as an issue of science or an issue a policy or economics, the cost-benefit analysis. but is ultimately the initiative are ethical obligation. i have a daughter who is 7 years old. fallen to make sure that we do make decisions today -- that we do not locked in a future of a degraded earth for her children and grandchildren by the decisions we're making now with
8:18 pm
fossil fuel usage. , we have gainedomebac economically through dirt cheap excess of energy. but it will be costly down the road. we still have time to avert a future where we leave our children and grandchildren a degraded planet, but there's not a whole lot of time. >> basically-judges has been -- basically, our idea has been let's make our children richer and they can figure it out here [laughter] my daughters may live to the end of this century. what are they looking at? >> there is still time to prevent -- most scientists
8:19 pm
classify it as what would constitute a very dangerous impact on the plan met -- on the planet. we can prevent that. we would have to prevent sued to concentration -- would have to prevent co2 concentration. next year, if we were sitting in this room, rudi 397. you can get to 450 pretty soon if we do not make some dramatic changes. if you do the math -- my good friend has going around the country with the do the math tour. we can still prevent dangerous impacts on our climate. but we have to bring our fossil fuel emissions to repeat within
8:20 pm
a matter of years. we have to ramp and down dramatically in the years ahead to acquire a major investment of infrastructure which shifts to renewable energy sources. we can do it. there is nothing preventing us from doing it other than will car here >> bringing the global issue down to the global scale, i found that nine cases that of 10, the reason why we care about climate change is not because -- is because stressors with vulnerabilities that we're built-in. here in california, half of the water from the sierra nevada snowpack is not enough to go around today. what if it gets warmer and the snow that melts in the winter? come spring, farmers will not have the water that they need. in west texas, we are taking the water out of an aquifer.
8:21 pm
in 15 years, we have drained half the aquifer. it is not coming back. where will we get the water then? in the northeast, where a big cities right at sea level. they are already liable to stone -- to storm say. as the world warms, we will have increasing risks, but we have already built into our cities and agriculture and water and heat. but is that water vulnerable ready -- vulnerability the system?kling into >> until now, you have the ability of with drying unlimited amounts of water. for the first time, they're intending to limit them and people are up in arms. that is a freedom you're taking away >> you really mean arms.
8:22 pm
>> yes, i do. 1 >> , some of the drought with sought and colorado is affected by climate? >> it comes down to what you said in what the future will look like. lee have seen longer fire seasons, larger fires, and a lot of resources and wrote. in regards to our forests, we see the early signs, the tip of the iceberg, what these forests will do during stress. widespread massive pre-mortality events? these are pretty strongly linked to temperature.
8:23 pm
it is fairly safe to say it these are warnings of what is coming. >> when you are in colorado doing research, people connect those stocks? >> they're starting to appear -- those dots? >> they are starting to. and sometimes i want to chat and tell you what they think is chap -- but it is happening. but you would take note and stop to think about it anymore. >> 2012 here in the u.s. gave us a glimpse of the sort of future that is in store if we do not do something to avert -- if we don't shift away from business as usual. we saw record temperatures last summer. we saw record drought for large for the country. in colorado, that came together
8:24 pm
with record fuel. because of the pine bark beetle infestation, due to record warm winters, it was literally a perfect storm of macroclimate's and assesses the came together to bring this wildfire. we saw american storm. and hurricane. it broke previous records and flooding in new york city. and there's certainly a climate change in the sense that, from the 13 -- at least 1 foot of that would have saved lives. that is the difference between a bad and a disastrous flooding event. that storm was sitting over
8:25 pm
near-record temperatures. we saw that a year ago. warm temperatures were sitting off the east coast of the u.s. it was a slower-moving storm and is the goal of the moisture, leading to record flooding over a large part of the western u.s.. scientists are starting to peace that together potentially with the unusual trajectory that sandy took that was not part of the social impact. >> which talked-about the pine bark beetle.
8:26 pm
catherine, as a canadian, how does this debate affect canada or other neighboring countries? question i would love to be able to say that things are very different in canada, but i can you -- cannot. there are definitely more people. you can have all the goodwill in the world. but if you deny do anything about it, it does not produce anywhere ahead. climate change brings up issues that are in the american psyche, things like taxation, government control, and people thinking back to 1976 when you hear words like that. so i think there is a very different culture in canada, working together, more of a communal ideas. so i believe we have less of schools to overcome where independents is something that is ingrained since we were born.
8:27 pm
>> there is significant resistance here in the u.s., but also elsewhere. let's talk about some of the personal attacks. in your book, you wrote to strides in newton and his e- mails had been dissected. use that to say that you were doing parlor tricks the you were not really trying to do. there was a famous saying who once gave me shorelines.
8:28 pm
unfortunately, when you look at the jargon that we use, it is quite a bit different from the popular lexicon. we use the term trip all the time as it were a symbol way to solve a problem. you learn about tricks to solving differential requirements. yet, when a public is not familiar with the language of science, it is exposed, taken at of context. taken at of context specifically in new ways to mislead them to what they were disputing about. it is very easy to check to convince them that that is their worst fears were that scientists are conspiring to fool the public.
8:29 pm
that climate change is the greatest disservice perpetrated on the american people. [laughter] >> have anyone to be mailed did they have? >> it was a cherry picking exercise. >> explain what you were doing with a tricky since where you were combining different types of data. >> it was not my words and it was not talking about my work. but he was the one they were all turned to go after so it was attached to me. there was an e-mail address to me for my colleague who said something about addressing two ways of keeping track of the
8:30 pm
same data. the trees are known not to be reliable and collector 1960. they have to throw out the data by 1960. global warming did not start in 1960. he wanted to make sure that the record was from the past two decades. he was applying device for coming up with the heckscher sensation. >> what can science due to in the eyes of us? what are we prepared to buffer against changes that are coming our way? tell us about adaptation. >> i do a lot of work with agents, looking at what climate change means. so we looked at california and chicago and now texas. that is where i live.
8:31 pm
we are always very careful to look at it with at least two different and vigorous grandeur. what will the future look like if you can transition in a sensible way to alternative energy and low carbon emissions. and i really like this two- pronged approach. we see what we have to adapt to, no matter what we do. you have no magic switch. so we will have to adapt to -- if you're working as a refuge to protect an endangered species, 50 years from now come made to be 300 miles to the north and it does not make sense. but by quantifying the higher and pat, which for california,
8:32 pm
it would be lost of 9%. when we look at that scenario, looking at the differences and trying to quantify the benefits, if we didn't do this without this, the chances of living between a high scenario is somewhere between 20% and 30 prevent sign. the only reason we will change is because we learned the consequences of our poor choices. i like to think that every time we do an assessment and looking at business as usual, i would like to think that air time we do that, we're changing the livelihood of passing this way. >> are you saying that we need to go on the low car and died. >> we do not work on our own
8:33 pm
health as a country. >> don't make it personal, greg. [laughter] >> i know what i eat. but we're not very good at something that is even that personal. >> as catherine said, we have to recognize that there is a certain amount of change that is compatible. it is in the pipeline. we will have to adapt to a certain amount of civil level -- in terms of the sea level rise. the fact is, if you look at business as usual through the end of the century, we're talking about a different planet. it is not the planet we grew up in. we're talking about an
8:34 pm
environment that receives the adaptive capacity of ecosystems. so adaptation alone is not a viable strategy. there is too much discussion about adaptation. it seems to be a crush for those who do not want to take the necessary actions. we have to do both. >> is there any place to hide? i know people who have looked at the map and think there is where i will go. does that follow you? >> you may have remembered that scientists were arrested in the 1960's. he concluded that there were only two nations in the world who would benefits for global warning. they deny care about canada.
8:35 pm
they did not take his advice. but 50 years later, we are back to doing what he recommended and that he is coming out of the pacific. the balance is the excess of both parent. >> there will be a lot more floods and malting of carmen- frost. >> you can see in these observations the co2 rises in the atmosphere, but that is an atmosphere ecosystem drying up. if a monoxide. >> is the diminishing?
8:36 pm
>> there are some early did it -- early identification is that they might be. in general, the force provide a very enviable evil system and dressed joe fur trade benefits we don't know exactly when or if we have crossed that tipping point, but they knew that they have discovered this. >> i just want to ask you how you get up in the morning? you must have a great deal of optimism. >> if you want to go upstate. if you want to call it ho. oscar, a change we have addressed -- in time, we have
8:37 pm
had the opportunity to address fans. we will step up to the plate, even though this is a bigger problem that gets down to the roots of our energy economy. but we will tackle this problem. >> we have the microphone here. we would like to invite your for dissipation. the line starts right here with our producer. we invite you to join the conversation. one part question. if you have a problem with that,
8:38 pm
i am here for you. there will then be brief intermission. and then there will be the conclusion of this evening's program. >> i worked in a hospital laboratory. my question to use about the dynamic model. on the gi bill back in 1978, what i earn about -- i learned of the theory of global warming. a year later, i found something that would question money to do some like this. i was involved in that for a year. since then, i have not been able to give the academic community in -- i am a model on the signs
8:39 pm
in super science. my question is why is there so much reluctance in the academic community to look at a program they helped bid and benefits the economy and education and the next generation? i am not sure i see reluctant spirit and see a lot of outside- the-box. when it comes to the entire couple problem of social, hurt, interaction, there is a lot of interest in understanding all of the coupling, much as the relationship between fossil fuel blue -- fossil fuel burning and climate change, but how humans respond to the decisions that are involved and the feedback that actually occurs.
8:40 pm
because the climate is changing. human behavior influences climate. there is a lot of research going on. there is an interesting dynamic, a social earth system, if you like. >> thank you. let's have your next question. my humanness comes out when i see commercials of companies that are speaking of both sides of their mouth. this is an audience filled with left-writers and petition scientists. any suggestions on how to effectively get to these companies? >> catherine? >> and good question. >> i am not speaking as an expert. i certainly heard could result from shareholder meetings. they're taking a look at your portfolio and it could mean a
8:41 pm
potential foot in the wolf. >> he has looked at the anti- apartheid on how to perhaps bring greater accountability. bill is a real rock star. he gets people involved. that is what we're talking about, getting involved, is influencing policy makers, decision making, speaking with the opinion leaders. there is a multiplier effect that we all need to sort of use whatever tools are available to us to bring this issue to the floor.
8:42 pm
>> just a reminder, the anti- apartheid chapter began at schools around the country. it led to california and the governor. >> i am jim salinger. i am teaching c's. it is very interesting when you hear a song, australian or a cannon, the denial is so strong. if you ask why, i might be surprised [indiscernible]
8:43 pm
and i was teaching a class three weeks ago and we said, come on, you can have leadership from the top. where is the groundswell from underneath? we were in mtv. issues were important. >> are there -- >> that is what i am asking. the graduation for students? are you talking about that tuition and whatever else? there is something all the came out a few months ago. concern about climate change and different age groups. what we found was that they
8:44 pm
acceptance of climate changes that it is higher and higher than it has ever been among college students. so they don't exemplify them as strangers. when it is difficult to find a job when there are bread and butter issues in the table, it is easy to sedate someone who seems different. maybe the picture changes a bit. when it starts to come home. we have events like hurricane sandy, the wildfires, i think people are starting to recognize that this is not a far off problem. if it is something that we are expecting it now hoppe. it is really the prioritization of action. i think it may change what we
8:45 pm
have seen over the last year. >> i agree. >> in general, college campuses and the general -- the younger generation can be moved by this. but the long term seeming impacts on your career or making 11 may be hampered by speaking up and taking action. there has been an incredible change in the community. when sutter taught this course, he started teaching it with 40 or 50 people. the very last time he taught it, it was 300.
8:46 pm
>> [indiscernible] -- which is a good start. but we need to take this moment and gain some momentum. and say that we need to educate america. what role you think there is in the mainstream media and to try to get some designated shows the talk about this day in and day out? this is not the fiscal cliff, but the climate cliff? getting politicians, authors,
8:47 pm
experts, so that the rest of america hears it. i really hope that this will be the next wave, talking about solutions. >> the good news is that there are already some wonderful things coming. if is a great series. it is coming out of showtime. they go interviewing people around the country and record any impact on the lives. i think that increasing the awareness, that this is an issue that happens to me in my life, where i love, none of the people of bears for the island, but me living in san antonio tx or me
8:48 pm
living in concord or seattle for miami. you can make it directly relevant and interesting to cuba's lives. the more interest there will be. >> thank you so much to each of you for coming. i want to draw on a couple of things. as the education director with the power and passion of my generation wanting -- one of the things that i think is so critically missing is clear pathways to support the translation of informed inspiration and its desire to be part of interaction. i was curious it, if we had to lift up in a three-year window,
8:49 pm
how do we prioritize the leverage point in terms of production? is it a rebate system? will it make a difference in the general public? my generation of young people would want to be a solution to the change. >> that is a whole other panel. as scientists, our job is to solidify the suns with the best possible information. honestly, i am thankful that i am not in policy making because that is the hardest thing to do. but i believe that there is a great amount of low-hanging fruit. there are a lot of things that we can do, leaving climate out of it, still have benefits.
8:50 pm
>> old malay, there is a worthy debate be had on what the rule is that government plays. ultimately, that is what we have to do. there is a debate to be had. should it be a carbon tax, a cat capt. trade legislation? there are now conservative groups who are advancing with free-market branded solutions. the other day, a filler in the conservative booth, came out in support of a carbon tax. [applause] grover norquist chemo for about 16 hours. [laughter]
8:51 pm
definitely carbon taxes is bubbling up. rush right. and from a surprising source. people on the conservative side of the political spectrum, ultimately, i should not be a bar -- a partisan political issue. the day the sandy hit, i was with many people. >> of is just about to touch on that. fires burned homes with their democrats for republicans. the climate system does not care. hopefully, what we can do as scientists, is checked the risks and then the location details. but that is a whole different ball game. >> my name is carol stone.
8:52 pm
do you think the mayan calendar this year will have any effect? and what is the effect of the population in the world -- a billion on this issue of carbon -- >> violation? >> that -- there is a number of factors. when you look at local government in emissions. if there are more people on the planet burning carbon for energy, we will be adding more carbon to the atmosphere. on the other hand, people who are living in a western-style
8:53 pm
exist then use a lot more energy than people in the developing world. one of the terms in the product of terms from which we deduce future carbon emissions is global population. we tend to believe the global population will stabilize with 10 billion people by the middle of the century because the developing world will take on some of the characteristics of the western world in terms of their rate of production, for example. when you look at some of those projections, built into many of them is the assumption that the global population will eventually stabilize. if it does not do that, it means that the problem is even worse. that is the key uncertainty, the
8:54 pm
wild card. >> the bottom-line is a really nice where people are in the world, but how many people want a u.s. lifestyle. >> thomas rügen talks about an america that has 3 billion people. >> my name is wayne rauf. it is -- wayne rth. what will it take to make the sacrifices to save our planet? my basic metaphor for what we're doing to plan a is putting a stick in a hornet's nest.
8:55 pm
a look at the pale ale for maximum and that lasted a thousand years. when we were bombed in pearl harbor, we acted very quickly. we do not recognize that we're in a program right now. but it is spreading all of the planet and nothing is raising the consciousness of the common people to the degree to say that we have to do something. >> where is the sense of urgency? what will it take?
8:56 pm
will it take another hurricane katrina-would take another drought in the midwest where they have no food to eat? how many people in the united states will have to die before the united states political system recognizes and becomes a leader should quicken actually make some changes? >> one thing that steve schneider always emphasized to students is that if is worth thinking about the matter for which apply to climate change. coral harbour is one which is an urgent one. but certainly apartheid or civil-rights movement were things that are every bit as urgent where the time skills are much longer and the accuracy takes on how you talk to people.
8:57 pm
>> i think we can learn a lot from the past. look at the issue of slavery. we were the bad guys than also .ppeare it was the foundation of the economy. people were making the same argument at them. it was not so bad. it would destroy the economy if we got rid of it. i think people have a lot to learn. there are many examples we can build on from the past year -- in the past. admitting that we have a problem is the first step. >> slavery -- abolishing slavery did not room economy. >> right. >> nobody objects to a medical researcher over what we need to do to save lives.
8:58 pm
that when a clear researcher says what we have to do to save lives, people get upset. >> one of the things that i tried to stress in my book is a theme that i touched on earlier, that this should not be partisan political issue. with the attacks those of you to by politicians who wanted to discredit my work and wanted to discredit the signs of climate change, some of the heroes came from what you might be considered as surprising quarters. probably the greatest defender of against -- defender against
8:59 pm
the attacks of joe barton of texas, trying to find something to discredit me, it turned out that it was a fellow republican, the chair of the house science committee, pro-sons, pro- environmental republican who came to defend my colleagues and me in this political witch hunt by his own fellow republican. a think you'll find this among many of my colleagues and scientists today. we do our best to frame this not as a bipartisan or political issue because it should not be. it is a fact of life that it has become somewhat of a partisan political issue. but there is some evidence that there are people on the republican side of the aisle were stepping up to challenge
9:00 pm
and do something about this problem. >> we sometimes make the mistake of saying that [indiscernible] i think they are completely complementary. signs is able to tell us what the problem is and what the consequences are of the trees is we make. to tell us what the problem is, and what are the consequences of what the choices we make. a village in alaska considers it to have already happened. a town in texas may think it is not going to happen for another few decades or even longer. we have to bring our values into it. craigslist it two more questions in. welcome. >> -- let's get two more questions. welcome. >> have we seen a similar rise
9:01 pm
in climate denial in canada? >> unfortunately, we have seen that, and some of it at a fairly high level. it turns out that a lot of the lobbyists and advisers who were behind some of the efforts to stifle scientists back in the previous presidential administration here in the u.s. literally moved up to alaska with the harper ministration and used the same playbook. government scientists were being censored and not allowed to talk to the media about the threat to the environment of climate change. i have colleagues to study climate change on polar environments who were told specifically that they were not allowed to talk to the media, and that was being orchestrated at a very high level in the
9:02 pm
harbour administration. it was the same playbook that had been used previously in the u.s. with some of the same lobbyists and advisers that were running the show. i do not think that is unrelated to what we have seen regarding policy in canada under this administration. >> you mentioned hoping to hold the line at 50 parts per million. given the long life of co2 in the atmosphere, how many billion metric tons are we going to have to reduce to get it down to hold that line? >> our award be here today, james hansen, has made an argument for that being too
9:03 pm
high. even if we were to bring co2 back to 50 ppm, that would barely be enough necessary to prevent long-term changes, even if we were to sustain at that level. of course, we are now well above 50. we are now at 90. it may not be a magic number. it is the extent of the risk and how much risk we want to subject ourselves to. think of it as a freeway. you would like to get off at the soonest exit ramp you can, but if you miss the first exit ramp, you still want to take the next one. it does not mean you stay on the freeway until oblivion. this has been framed pretty easily. -- he is fully. -- usefully.
9:04 pm
rea five times as much fossil fuel already of -- we have five times as much fossil fuel already available in reserves to give us to degrees celsius warming in the climate system. we cannot afford to tap into the reserves we already have available, let alone exploring and investigating additional reserves. that is the bottom line. >> any last word? >> i think it is hard to look this issue in the face often and not just lose hope. when we see that the science grows ever more certain year after year and the missions continued to -- emissions continue to climb 3% every year. not only that,
disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 12/30/2012